The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep.  Sandstein  19:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disinformation campaign during Russian-Georgian war (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The purpose of this article appears to be to push a certain point of view -- that Russia engaged in a propaganda campaign against Georgia. While the first line has been changed to a more neutral claim, the entire body of the article solely portrays Russian propaganda. Perhaps this should be returned to 2008 South Ossetia war, where it would have more context. Editor437 (talk) 23:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. That was a hotly disputed subject in article 2008 South Ossetian war. It was deleted and restored several times. I thought that having this subject as a separate sub-article and removing it from main article was a good compromise solution. Besides, main article 2008 South Ossetian war was too large. Thus removing this segment would facilitate reading in accordance to WP:MOS. There is no question that an extensive propaganda campaign takes place during this war - per sources.Biophys (talk) 00:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. 2008 South Ossetian iWar as per 2008 South Ossetian war and iwar adding the info on cyber attacks and media freedom issues. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 00:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and rename--a clearly notable and well-sourced concept. Article is currently in atrocious shape, however. JJL (talk) 00:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Disinformation campaign during the 2008 South Ossetian war like already offered here before me, and offcaurse Keep. Nice idea Biophys! I 100% Agree that this article is needed. At least for now he presents both sides, all clames. Kostan1 (talk) 00:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as POV fork of 2008 South Ossetia War. There would need to be widespread agreement that there was a disinformation campaign, which I don't see from the references. Wikipedia can't draw its own conclusions that 'News reports were unbalanced, therefore there must have been a disinformation campaign.' We can only report reliable sources that specifically comment on the fact of disinformation or improper coverage. It is conceivable there might be enough sources for an article on 'Press coverage of the 2008 South Ossetia War', but it would need to be carefully sourced to coverage of the coverage, not the original reports themselves. The final paragraph of this article, about the Reuters coverage, looks to be pure WP:Synthesis. EdJohnston (talk) 01:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There were accusations. The Russian minister haven't blamed US in that? Wasn't that clame referenced? There is alot of material here and that's why don't you think that should be a seperate article? I think that was a really nice idea from Biophys. Kostan1 (talk) 01:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this specific paragraph should be deleted, if it has not been already deleted. Yes, this should be coverage about coverage. Yes, this article should be improved a lot.Biophys (talk) 04:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge back to 2008 South Ossetia War as per EdJohnston, or Delete. A major problem with this article, along with the section in the main article is the naming. Mass media disinformation on the part of Russia is presented as fact. Propaganda on the part of Russia is presented as fact. Bias against Russia in the western media is presented as alleged. It is vehemently anti-Russian in nature, and needs to be deleted as NPOV. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 01:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The nominator rationale was the following: "the entire body of the article solely portrays Russian propaganda". Even if it was only about Russian propaganda, that would be a perfectly legitimate subject, as we have Soviet propaganda and many other similar articles. But it also includes other sides. In addition, this is not an appropriate forum to discuss renaming. If it was, one could argue that all "Ossetian war" articles must be renamed as "Russian-Georgian war" articles, because the military actions took place outside the South Ossetia and because a vast majority of sources call this conflict "Russian-Georgina war".Biophys (talk) 03:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Of course it would be entirely appropriate if one wanted to push their anti-Russian opinions, however, WP:NPOV dictates this is not allowable. Funnily enough the article as it stands completely omits or white-washes disinformation on the part of Georgia (the Russians have bombed and destroyed Tbilisi Airport for example) and the Western media (the fact that western media have for all intents and purposes omitted the part about Georgia launching their raids on S. Ossetia which launched the conflict -- something that wasn't lost on the Russian media (and again omitted from this anti-Russian diatribe). --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 05:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep in mind that we have article Anti-Russian sentiment and other similar articles. Anti-national opinions/sentiment is a perfectly legitimate subject.Biophys (talk) 18:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course we have Anti-Russian sentiment, but editors can't allow their own Anti-Russian sentiment to poison WP with their own propaganda and their own POV. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 04:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep the main article is too long for all this. Ostap 05:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There was no consensus to split this out from the main article in the first place, and the main article needs a major cleanup. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 05:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge back, or rename to Media coverage of the Russian-Georgian war perhaps. The current title is too narrow and non-neutral. Media coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict is a similar solution to a similar problem.John Z (talk) 05:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 10:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 10:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as POV-fork.DonaldDuck (talk) 11:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The main article on the war is too long; the topic is notable. If necessary, re-name to something like "Russian disinformation during the 2008 South Ossetia War" RayAYang (talk) 11:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to an even more NPOV title? Like Georgia didn't present major disinformation and propaganda during the conflict? If we were to believe the western media, overnight Putin (who is now known as Hitler) decided for no reason and without provocation to invade Georgia and pound the living shit out of the Georgian people. Talk about disinformation. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 04:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Agreed with RayAYang's comment to possibly re-name if needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BountyHunter2008 (talk • contribs) 12:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge back, or Keep

* Concerning content fork (moving a section of an article to a new article) WP:CFORK Avoiding unnecessary splits

¨Editors are cautioned to not immediately split articles if the new article would meet neither the general notability criterion nor the specific notability criteria for their topic. Instead, editors should fully develop the main article first, locating sources of real-world coverage that apply both to the main topic and to the subtopic. Through this process, it may become evident that subtopics or groups of subtopics can demonstrate their own notability and can be split off into their own article.
Creation of the new article should be agreed to by consensus of editors. A template (splitSection) can be used to direct their attention to the issue. If information can be trimmed, merged, or removed, these steps should be undertaken first before the new article is created.¨

* Concerning POV fork WP:POVFORK notice:This section was moved from the main article, and the title changed to "Russia-Georgia" war. It was probably done in good faith, but it has created much confusion. This section relates specifically to one article, and hence should be moved back.

¨A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. Both content forks and POV forks are undesirable on Wikipedia, as they avoid consensus building and therefore violate one of our most important policies.
Any improvements should be done on the main article page for now.Both content forks and POV forks are undesirable on Wikipedia, as they avoid consensus building and therefore violate one of our most important policies.¨

* Concerning Attack page WP:ATP notice:

¨A Wikipedia article, page, template, category, redirect or image created for the sole purpose of disparaging its subject is an attack page. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, these pages are subject to being deleted by any administrator at any time. Non-administrative users who find such pages should add the tag to them, and should warn the user who created them by putting the tag on their talk page.
If the subject of the article is notable, but the existing page consists solely or primarily of personal attacks against that subject and there's no good revision to revert to, then the attack page should be deleted and an appropriate stub article should be written in its place.¨

- This article/section talks about the information war (ie media coverage aspect of an information war), and therefore does not constitute a subject (person or entity) that could be subjected to personal attacks.

the only appropriate deletion of this article would be to merge back to the main article in conformance with WP:POVFORK
Therefore either AfD is removed, or POV fork is corrected which implies merging with main article.
Therefore the speedy notice must be restored, and if a different reason (apart from the already rejected db:attack) exists for AfD it must be stated. --Tananka (talk) 17:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep Merging would make the main article too long and the suitability of the information was already accepted and established as part of the main article. Hobartimus (talk) 19:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Objection:
  "Even if the subject of the new article is controversial, this does not automatically make the new article a POV fork. However, the moved material must be replaced with an NPOV summary of that material. If it is not, then the "spinning out" is really a clear act of POV forking: a new article has been created so that the main article can favor some viewpoints over others." - WP:POVFORK

"Both content forks and POV forks are undesirable on Wikipedia, as they avoid consensus building and therefore violate one of our most important policies.¨" - WP:POVFORK —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tananka (talk • contribs) 19:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm cconfused now, because after adding db:move it was pointed out that the notice said it was an uncontroversial move, and yet the matter is controversial. So that was not appropriate. As long as this article remains and is summarized then I agree with keep. My reactions were mainly based on seeing the db:attack and thinking that the whole section would be removed entirely as if there had been no information war and that there were no grave inconsistencies between different media outlets. So, after reviewing readability standards I also support:

• Keep: Under the condition that a proper summary is added in the main article later, and that it is linked reflecting current main article title and future changes to it.--Tananka (talk) 20:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: An article describing media portrayal of the conflict from all the sides is needed, and the text has some starting points. More work is clearly needed to present all POV. --Yurik (talk) 20:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, clearly a notable topic in its own right. —Nightstallion 00:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree with Yurik. And the main article is getting very long so I wouldn't merge, but a summary is needed in the main article. Jason3777 (talk) 03:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but neutralize the article to include the Georgian POV. --Dial (talk) 03:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per above arguments.Freepsbane (talk) 11:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - notable. --Avala (talk) 13:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Merge into main article. Needs concise, neutral, better writing and organization. iWar and Media Coverage should be two different sections. Cyber attacks and propaganda are not the same phenomena. The latter is a critical factor in understanding the ability of governments to harness public opinion in support of their actions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wayneg1776 (talk • contribs) 15:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this is an important point--that cyberattacks and propaganda are not the same thing. To my mind what's most notable here, and deserving of a separate article, is the information warfare in the sense of [1] and [2]. Waging the popularity war in the media can be handled at the main article. JJL (talk) 15:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wayneg1776 iWar covers both the Cyber attacks and propaganda/media issues, it just happens that most of the combatants are non-state actors and have often agendas not in sync with either side fully. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 15:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The disinformation campaign was a notable aspect of the war in South Ossetia. Mjbjosh (talk) 18:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In regards to the keeps which in most cases is summed up with opinions that this is a notable topic, it should be pointed out that these opinions are opinions of editors, and even the article as it stands now does not even confirm that there was a disinformation campaign, which means that there was an organised and concerted effort to mislead the world community in relation to the goings on in the conflict. The naming structure was obviously chosen to portray a negative anti-Russian POV and this obviously should be looked at in the overall Afd nomination. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 15:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep; intentional information bias played a distinct role in this conflict; as time passes the article will become more balanced and neutral. --CopperKettle (talk) 04:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keepboth pro georgia/nato and pro SO/russia sources have made whackload of accusations against eachother. while this page may not be clean at this moment, there are relevant contoversies to be covered. although we may even have to rename the title since "misinformation" is a loaded term. in any case, this article has a purpose worthy of an encyclopedic entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaoquan (talk • contribs) 05:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: as Ed's concerns have been addressed. Ottre (talk) 06:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Close as nom` (non-admin closure) Michael Q's comments. Thanks again. Leonard^(Bloom) 02:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vicky Chopra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable person. Fails WP:N, along with WP:PEOPLE. Google hints at notability, but I'm unsure. Leonard^(Bloom) 23:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• If directing one movie is notable then Keep or rather move to Vikram Chopra (Vicky is a nickname). See this IMDB entry. ChiragPatnaik (talk) 04:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Google searches for Vicky Chopra and Vikram Chopra confirm the IMDB data that he directed one film. However, THIS search found coverage of Vikram at 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and others... definitely enough to show notability even if for only one film. Article sure needs work though. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman 01:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talking Metal On Fuse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable podcast. Fails WP:N, and WP:WEB. Google returns nothing useful. Leonard^(Bloom) 23:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. This isn't about the podcast but about a TV show that started life as a podcast. This is why I didn't tag it for deletion ages ago. Fuse TV is a genuine TV station so the article might have a hope. The reference in the article only mentions a pilot but there is a page for the show on Fuse's site[3]. What I can't see is it anywhere on Fuse's schedules (so I am not sure that it is a regular show) or any RS coverage when Googling. This link implies that it may have only run for 4 episodes and may be a very short segment, not a full length show. It is borderline, but it leans towards delete. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable TV show. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 18:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Policies and guidelines do not clearly favour either side. It's more about whether this is an appropriate statistic to include in an encyclopedia. The consensus here (albeit not an overwhelming one) is that is it not.  Sandstein  19:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Summer Olympics medals per capita (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Original research. Also violates WP:NPOV for pushing a minority POV and WP:RS for using a blog entry (albeit one from the LA Times) for its only page reference.

Please see past AFDs about similar Olympic medal sorting schemes:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1996 Summer Olympics medals per capita
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2004 Summer Olympics Medals Earned Per Capita
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olympic Medal Statistics: Medal Count Winners

Madchester (talk) 23:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Questions: Nominator, given the eight additional international news media sources added by Sad mouse, do you stand by your accusations in this nomination? If so, which accusations in particular: OR, NPOV, and/or RS? Neut Nuttinbutter (talk) 16:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given your refusal to tell me what position I am trying to advance, your citation of WP:SELFPUBLISHED was particularly odd.[4] It says, "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." My understanding is that Culpepper has been with the Los Angeles Times for some time, and was on assignment under the direction of an editor at an established international news organization with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
  • Compromise proposal: merge into Olympic medal table#Other ranking systems and/or 2008 Summer Olympics medal table. I will withdraw my request that you substantiate your baseless accusations of POV-pushing and a lack of reliable sources, and I hope you will withdraw the baseless accusations themselves, in the spirit of WP:CCC and WP:OI. Thank you for your consideration. Neut Nuttinbutter (talk) 12:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Perhaps the top five are worth a mention in the main article 2008 Summer Olympics medal table, but there is no need for its own article. Reywas92^Talk 23:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all the comments repeatedly made for past articles. There are no reliable sources to support this type of article (the LA Time blog for this particular year is only a top 25 and does not state where they got their population numbers), and any attempt to extend or "improve" the list would clearly be original research. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Affirm delete. I have just read the external links added to the article after my first AfD comments, and I still believe that a standalone article is not warranted. The set of media articles don't even agree with each other—sometimes per capita calculations are used, and sometimes it is per GDP, so they really can't be used as a set of references for that "top 25" table of numbers. I think the most appropriate outcome for this discussion is a deletion of the article, but also the addition of no more than a brief paragraph of prose text (and no tables) to the 2008 Summer Olympics medal table that discusses the criticism of the standard medal table, using some of these articles as cited references. Anything more than that would be WP:undue weight. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per precedent. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 23:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:CCC Neut Nuttinbutter (talk) 16:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or, by Reywas92's suggestion, merge a limited version into the main article. The article could easily be improved by adding any of the multiple main-stream media outlet references that referred to per capita medal counts. Trying to delete the article within minutes of creation does not give anyone the chance to add additional references. While this system of counting is not as common as simple totals, it was in multiple media outlets and is therefore not original research. Citing precedent is not helpful, as the per capita tables did not make main-stream media in previous games and was therefore original research. In this games they did make main-stream media and are therefore not original research by definition. Madchester's stated position on inclusion "Unless I woke up tomorrow morning and every newspaper and news agency adopted such a medals/capita system, such content is not permissible on Wikipedia" seems to be an unobtainable standard and indicates the bias of Madchester against such a system regardless of how it meets actual wikipedia criteria.Sad mouse (talk) 00:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As I listed above, the article fails the three fundamental policy pillars of Wikipedia. Please don't take my analogy out of context, as it was in reference to following WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:NOR. If a medal/capita standard was universally adopted by the IOC and world press, then it would easily satisfy the three listed policies. --Madchester (talk) 00:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Universal adoption is not and never has been the standard. Here are examples of main-stream media that discuss per capita winnings for 2008, as you can see there are many from different main-stream media outlets in multiple countries, this was just a small sample from a quick search: http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-08/23/content_9653160.htm http://3news.co.nz/News/SportsNews/NewZealandawinnerperheadofpopulation/tabid/415/articleID/68358/cat/70/Default.aspx

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/thepress/4667484a6009.html http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/editorial/story.html?id=47d1c547-967b-4ba3-ba0c-0735367c27a7 http://www.theolympian.com/olympics/story/557404.html http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/olympics/wires/08/21/2090.ap.oly.inside.the.rings/ http://www.dailynk.com/english/read.php?cataId=nk00100&num=3995 http://www.montsame.mn/index.php?option=com_news&task=news_detail&tab=200808&ne=1277 Sad mouse (talk) 00:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. While these articles discuss different/alternative ways of tallying medals, none of them are actually practiced by any reliable source. (A quick check indicates that these sources still use the IOC tally, if not a total medal count) Nor do they have any common tallying method (for example, do they all get their population figures from the same source? Do they do medals/capita or golds/capita? etc.) They're ultimately op-ed pieces and violate WP:NOR, if not WP:NPOV for pushing a specific opinion not shared by the majority.

I think this situation also fails WP:SYN. You can't use Source A and Source B to come to Conclusion C.... unless both sources independently reach the same Conclusion C. Right now, each of the alternative medal tallies listed have their own methodology and placements, so they're not reaching the same conclusion... --Madchester (talk) 00:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.' As an add-on, most of these new stories discussing a medals/capita tally refer to the personal website of one Bill Mitchell. Per WP:SELFPUBLISHED, we avoid using personal websites as reliable sources. On his site, Mr. Mitchell also states that I am currently hating the idea of China hosting the Olympic Games. In fact, I am hating the Olympic Games concept these days in general, so that throws WP:NPOV out the window. --Madchester (talk) 00:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment' Your original issue was that no one in the main stream media cared about per capita tables. I found many articles to show that this position was incorrect. Now you change your issue to saying that main-stream media articles that discuss a concept originally brought up on an individual blog cannot be used. This is absolutely not the point of WP:SELFPUBLISHED. If a blog idea gets taken up by the main-stream media it becomes news and is no longer original research. The motive of Mr Mitchell is just as irrelevant as your person motive for blocking this, the point is that whether the idea was originally his or not it was widely reported in the media of multiple countries. It certainly doesn't violate WP:NPOV because nowhere does it claim this is a better or worse measure, it simply reports a measure which was widely discussed in the media. Just listing wikipedia policies doesn't mean much if your use of them is inappropriate. Sad mouse (talk) 01:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as it stands. The article currently uses total medals, rather than the official IOC G-S-B ratings, and as such is pretty much fluff. If a source can be found for a G-S-B ranking, Id like to see that information Merged per Reywas92. I dont believe it violates NOR or NPOV, but it definitely violates RS. It is worthwhile information, imo, and adding it as an aside into the official tally page might have some value. Metao (talk) 01:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Affirm Delete per Andrwsc. Metao (talk) 05:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Issue has been discussed over and over again. Clearly is not congruent with Wikipedia's policies. Nirvana888 (talk) 01:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per everything above. It should also be noted that the person defending this type of statistical format and article happens to be Australian. Seems kind of agenda-ish. Geologik (talk) 02:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Poor form. I was born in Australia and live in America. I have no idea where Neut Nuttinbutter (who made the article, not myself) is from. Have a look through my edit history, I have never edited a sporting article and I have never made any "pro-Australia" edits. You appear to be from America and to be extensively invested in editing sporting articles, yet I don't accuse you of voting delete (and it does appear to just be a vote, since you didn't use any reasoning) just because the US performs poorly on a per capita basis. It would be polite to at least look into a user's history before assuming bad faith. Also Australia is pretty much the only country that has almost the same rank by either measure, so I don't even understand what the agenda would be Sad mouse (talk) 03:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - violates any number of policies. Basement12 (T.C) 02:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into the main article. The article is actually referenced, so there is actually no violation of OR as some insist, but there is no need to stand as an article on its own for fails notability compared to the main list.--Huaiwei (talk) 10:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per everything above. BountyHunter2008 (talk) 12:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is deletionism taken to a senseless extreme. The article clearly isn't original research - the information is sourced to an external reference. WP:RS does deprecate the use of blogs but actually says "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." LATimes is, I think we can agree, a reliable third party publication and the person who wrote the article Chuck Culpepper is described here as a "lead sports columnist" - sounds like an established expert to me. The final argument - NPOV - is a poor argument for deletion. AndrewRT(Talk) 13:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note Also, looking at the precedent none of those tabulations had a referenced source - hence why they were clearly OR and deletable. Hence the precedent doesn't apply here. AndrewRT(Talk) 13:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per precedent & policy vio. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 13:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If large countries (i.e. the United States) were allowed to send a number of athletes in the same proportions as smaller countries (i.e. the Bahamas), perhaps such a article would make sense. As is, NOCs are restricted to one team in team events and one or two entrants in many individual events. Phizzy (talk) 13:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Not recognized and supported by experts and specialists in sport industry. Cannot simply calculate in the sense of economy (like GDP) as winning medals is subject to different factors and Olympic rules. -Ngckmax (talk) 13:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete pushing a POV, there are disparancies in the world, thats it. Per nom Monster Under Your Bed ^(talk) 14:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Additional references added and proposed merge format display on discussion page. Sad mouse (talk) 15:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to closing admin - Eight additional reports in established international news media were just added to the article by Sad mouse, and so I ask that this entire debate be considered as part 1 (above this note) and part 2 (below), with part 1 being informative only and part 2 being operative. I do not understand the deletion arguments, but to the extent I do understand them, they do not seem to be based on actual Wikipedia policies or guidelines, or, in the case of "POV-pushing," do not specify the point of view which is said to have been pushed. As the accused pusher, I can't think of it, either. Neut Nuttinbutter (talk) 16:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Several affirmations of opinions have been made above this comment, but after the comment was posted. Please check timestamps of opinions above. Metao (talk) 05:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, this does not "violate any number of policies". Its been reported on, and its a simple to calculate statistic. No OR involved. --Reinoutr (talk) 19:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. Absolutely fails the OR policy. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 20:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Does the Los Angeles Times not have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" as described in WP:V and WP:RS? Neut Nuttinbutter (talk) 00:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There's no reason to believe it's not NPOV (how would it be POV?), the information is well sourced - the above note provides even more - and it isn't OR. OR is referring to original research, such as a scientific paper I self-publish in my basement with no outside recognition. OR does not apply to this article. It's a perfectly reasonable statistic, and dividing two numbers is not OR. By that logic, you could call almost anything "per capita" POV and OR. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 23:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is not original research (the data were already there), it is sourced, and it contains interesting information. Also, I don't see a reason why it should not be neutral: it has only information, not opinions. Eynar Oxartum (talk) 13:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Comment: GDP and winning medals are subject to different factors. If population is significant, how can you answer why India (with 1.1 billion people) got 1 gold medal while China (with 1.3 billion people) get 51 gold medals. It tells us there is not direct relationship between no. of medals won and population of a country. Wining medals is subject to Olympic entry rule and National Sport Policy of an individual nation. -59.149.32.77 (talk) 14:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is not a complaint based on wikipedia policy. It would be original research to cite reasons why China and India have such different performance. One wonders how anyone could possibly assume that population doesn't play a role, but that is neither here nor there. Try not to base your assessment on whether you agree with the article but on whether it violates any wikipedia policies. Sad mouse (talk) 19:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • It is conceptual incorrect. How can I go further to discuss if any violation of Wiki policies. -59.149.32.77 (talk) 10:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — The article fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines. There really is not enough significant coverage to determine an independent article, considering the media amplitude of the Olympics. Note the following of the current nine citations:

The first citation, used to show where the table comes from, is the only source actually implemented in this article. The other eight are only used to say something along the lines of "don't delete this article as it is notable". It is simply ridiculous using EIGHT SOURCES to say "Other media sources reported on per-capita medals as well." Nonetheless, most (all actually) of the remaining eight citations are flawed:
Many of the sources in the article are trivial.

1. This only discusses New Zealand's position in the medal count per capita.
2. This one is about the "cost" of New Zealand's medals and only makes a trivial statement of their ranking.
3. This one only refers to "per capita" when it says "Most of the rest of the world — other than those calculating by per capita or economic formulas, that is — renders its standings in order of gold medals won."
4. This one is an article criticizing the common medal tables. The only way someone might have thought it is connected to a 2008 Summer Olympics medals per capita table is because when it says "On a medal-per-capita basis, Canada easily outranks the two Olympic superpowers." Again, trvial coverage.

Two sources have nothing with "medals per captia", as they discuss "medals per GDP", something completely different:

1. This one from Sports Illustrated
2. And this from The Daily NK. If this article is kept, then an article of "medals per GDP" should be created.

One source is out of date.
The last source is basically a summary of the table from the Los Angeles Times blog.
Finally, not pertinent to this AfD, but the article's title incorrect as well. If you name it "2008 Summer Olympics medals per capita", the table should show show the ratio of medals per population, not the opposite. If this was ever to be kept, it should be renamed to something like "Ratio of population per medal of the 2008 Summer Olympics".
Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 23:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Question - if your position is that it is not notable enough for its own independent page, then why do you advocate delete instead of merge? I'm sure the references could be improved, the eight I put in were just from a thirty second google news search, I saw longer and better articles in print and there are many many hits. Your criteria for excluding articles was rather harsh (yes, obviously articles that were written during the games are "out of date" but the reference was to say that it was reported during the games; and an article basically summarising the LA Times table seems to me perfect evidence that the LA Times table was reported in the media), but it seems reasonable to cut it down to one or two good references Sad mouse (talk) 03:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge. I basically agree with Sad mouse. The article simply shows statistics. It does not imply that this method of ranking is better nor does it imply that Bahamas should be ranked the top in the world. It's just the same medal count shown in a different way. It seems to me that WP:NPOV is being violated by people who want to delete this article more than the article itself. Wookie919 (talk) 00:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree. The problem of neutrality is not so much about which method is "better" or not. I think the most relevant section of that policy is WP:NPOV#Undue weight. A brief mention of criticism and/or alternate calculations is appropriate for the main medal table article; an entire standalone article on the topic is not. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - where do we draw the line on statistics? If some journalist decides to post an article on "number of medals per head of cattle", or any other ranking method, should that have a seperate article also? It would be the same medal count shown in a different way. There is no clear link between population and number of medals (see China vs India vs Australia for example) so this ranking method is not significant. If it is substantially referenced give the system a brief paragraph and no more at Olympic medal table#Other ranking systems. — Basement12 (T.C) 03:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The lack of link between population/medals is exactly the point of this table and that is exactly what makes this table useful. One might claim that more population would naturally increase the chance of finding better athletes, but this table gives some evidence to the contrary. (Hm, do certain countries naturally have better athletes? Maybe.) Statistical representation can be used to show the link between two variables, but it can also be used to show the lack of such a link. I want to clarify that I didn't vote Strongly Keep. I said Keep or merge, and I am equally happy with both. I also didn't say that the current ranking method should be criticized. I just don't want (what I believe to be) a useful form of statistical representation getting completely wiped from wikipedia. Wookie919 (talk) 05:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: I agree with Wookie919, in fact, for an athlete in a big country it is more difficult to win a medal, because to qualify s/he has to get through a national-level competition in his own country. Wikipedia is not here to criticise anything, but to show how are things (remember that the difference between an encyclopedia and a dictionary is that the former gives some insight into how things are, not just describing them). Showing the fact that the country gets more medals while the athletes have it harder is interesting. An example: Benjamin Boukpeti, a half-French half-Togolese kayaker, preferred to defend Togo's flag, because it was more difficult to qualify being French (and he later won the first medal ever for Togo). Eynar Oxartum (talk) 13:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • That really sounds like you are calling for a keep just because it's useful, not considering whether the article meets or not any notability criteria. —Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 06:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you read my comment you will see I was not speaking about usefulness, but about the insight it gives into this subject. It is not a phone list (useful, but no insight into anything). If this medal table is deleted, the same reasons would be good enough to delete all the other medal tables. Personally I would prefer to integrate this article as a section of the main medal table Eynar Oxartum (talk) 07:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • ...as long as the amount of content "integrated" into the main article does not give it WP:Undue weight. These per-capita, per-GDP, per-whatever medal tables are clearly a minority view, not used by any major media organisations. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 07:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • The "insight it gives into this subject" is not a reason to keep an article, according to WP:Notability. By the way, this article has no subject. It's just a table copied and pasted from a website! What insight does this article give...any derived conclusions are personal and are really quite unreasonable due to the "lack of link between population/medals" as you said. —Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 07:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • First of all I think you are confusing between wookie919 (me) and Eynar Oxartum. Also I am sorry that I misled you with my final sentence above. I DO sound like I want to keep or merge the article just because it is useful. That is simply not true. I wouldn't have voted to keep or merge if I thought the article violated any of the wikipedia rules. Also according to IT IS USEFUL: There are some times when "usefulness" can be the basis of a valid argument for inclusion. An encyclopedia should, by definition, be informative and useful to its readers. Try to exercise common sense, and consider how a non-trivial number of people will consider the information "useful". Information found in tables in particular is focused on usefulness to the reader. An argument based on usefulness can be valid if put in context. I believe a non-trivial number of people will consider this table useful because the table demonstrates that there is no clear link between population and the number of medals obtained. I fail to understand why you keep referring to the lack of link between the two variables as reasoning for the table not being useful, when in fact it is the table that shows the lack of relationship. Wookie919 (talk) 09:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • An entire article, or even just the table of 25 (or more) sets of numbers, is overkill if the point you wish to make is that there is no clear link between population and the number of medals obtained. A sentence of prose text in the main article would suffice. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 09:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• delete. Published sources != notable as an encyclopedia article. SYSS Mouse (talk) 16:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus, defaults to keep. Note that the page has been redirected to bootstrapping. Stifle (talk) 15:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bootstrap (word origin) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Was placed on prod by another user, but three users had edited it previously and I am unsure. I feel it belongs on AFD; the reason for prod was that the article is a dictionary definition. Esteffect (talk) 23:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (I nominated for PROD) on the basis stated then that word etymology is part of a dictionary definition and thus this fails WP:DICT. Ros0709 (talk) 23:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The origin of a word is not suitable for an encyclopedia article. However the history of the expression "Lift one's self up by one's own bootstraps" might be. Borock (talk) 00:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wow, the title even makes it clear that it's just dictionary information. --Rividian (talk) 01:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Reconsider My purpose in creating Bootstrap (word origin) was to provide a linkable page that presents the image of the leather boot with a visible pull strap in a short article on the history of the word evolving into multiple metaphors that can be linked from Bootstrapping (disambiguation) where the link to Bootstrap (word origin) will be seen by people who click on Bootstrap. I have added the link in Bootstrapping. It is not likely that such people will search on Boot and if they do they will probably exit because they are interested in bootstrapping, not footware. I tried to put the image on the Bootstrapping (disambiguation) page, but that was reverted because images are not allowed on disambiguation pages. If I put the image in Wiktionary, it is not likely that the person searching Wikipedia for Bootstrap will access the dictionary because they already know generally what bootstraping is and they want more than a defination. I don't think it would be appropriate to add the boot image to every one of the links from the disambiguation page such as Bootstraping (computer), Bootstrapping (finance), etc. etc. So where should I put it where it will be seen by those who would be interested? Please take another look at Bootstrap (word origin). Greensburger (talk) 05:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I can certainly see the point of having this, it avoids repeating the same explanation on a number of articles. However it may as well be merged into the Bootstrapping page. I notice this content has been introduced there before, and removed citing Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages), but this strikes me as a place we could ignore all rules. the wub "?!" 14:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment At the moment, Bootstrap redirects the the Bootstrapping disambiguation article. I would propose that Bootstrap instead be made into the primary topic, it being the obvious origin of all other uses of 'bootstrapping.' Within the Bootstrap article could be links to the sundry related derivative uses. I'm not sure if this should be done by simply adding the content of this article to the current Bootstrap page, or possibly simply moving this article to Bootstrap, moving the current Disambiguation page to Bootstrap (disambiguation) and then linking back to it. I do think the current title is inappropriate though. Ce1984 (talk) 00:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, more exactly rename it to Bootstrapping: let it be the default, main article for the topic, let it have the default redirects, while removing the default redirects from the recent Bootstrapping disambiguation page, and renaming that to Bootstrapping (disambiguation).

Argumentation: As far as I know, bootstrapping is a strange concept. It is neither a single concept, nor a bunch of unrelated concepts. It is a powerful common pattern, a sweeping analogy with its deserved place in the Platonic realm that manifests itself in many faces in the various sciences. Moreover, its semantic is not static: scientist use the term with new meanings as new manifestations are being explored. For example, we can talk about bootstrapping also

in biology

when we assume that first macromolecule-based living beings emerged "on top of" self-reproductuve clay christals. The biological faces can give rise also to analogies in architecture': How can we build a vault with one hand? The vault should be ready from the very beginning, because a half-complete vault collapases at once. First we build a hill out of stones, then we build a vault on top of it, putting the stones one by one onto the top of the hill, then we remove the stonehill from under the vault. Richard Dawkins uses this analogy in explaining the possible origin of recent self-replication big molecules and life.

in communication

the prisonars in Tzarist Russian prisons developed a means of communication: they "knocked" messages to each other on the wall. The old prisoners had to teach this "knocking alphabet" to their new prisoner-mates: they had to explain what the coding system was, how the patterns of knocks could be assigned to the letters of the Russian alphabet. But the knocking code had to be explained also by the knocking on the wall, because the captives had no chance to meet personally or exchange letters! How could they resolve this circulus vitiosus? First, they used a simpler variant. They coded each letter of the alphabet by that many knockings as the number of the letter in the Russian alphabet was: one knock, A, two knocks, B etc. This simple system could easily be taught by simple examples "Who are you?" etc. Later they taught to the novice a more sophisticated coding system "on top of" this simple one.

in the foundations of mathematics

if we build a system of logic, we often use set theory for "holding" collections, we often use natural numbers for indexing etc. That seems to be a circulus vitiosus: set theory and arithmetic is based on logic, logic is based on set theory and arithmetic? In fact, the problem can be resolved by a kind of bootstrapping: we build first a "dummy" version of arithmetic and set theory, integrated deeply in the very syntax of our system of logic, then we build our system of logic, afterwards we can use our system of logic to build the "unabridged" arithmetic and set theory.

The examples show that

1. the various faces of bootstrapping share a common, deep underlying pattern
2. bootstrapping concept is not a closed, static concept, but an evergreen developing one, with more and more new manifestations.

All that implies that a disambiguation page is not the good way to cover the concept of bootstrapping. The "main" bootstrapping artice must explain the origin of the word, and the common, deep underlying pattern, mention the many faces, manifestations, narrate the history, the dynamics of the concept, and enumerate the may various manifestations. Disambiguation pages should not be used for explaining a family of related concepts. Disambiguation pages are good for enumerating unrelated concepts that are casually pronounced materially with a common word.

Of course the disambiguation page may be still needed: there may be such meanings of word "bootstrapping" that are not covered by the above common pattern, but are an entirely casual. I am not an expert in that, but I suppose, Bootstrap Bill Turner is such a meaning of the word. This belongs surely to a disambiguation page, but many of the scientific meanings are related, covered by a shared common pattern, lead by a powerful analogy, these belong rather to an explanatory main article.

In summary: I propose

1. Renaming Bootstrap (word origin) into Bootstrapping, that will be the main article, it should have the default redirects,
2. extending the explanation of the "common pattern" in the concept family of bootsrapping
3. Keeping the etymology part and the image, they are very good in the "common" main article
4. removing the default redirect from Bootstrapping (disambiguation)
5. mentioning (and shortly explaining) Bootstrapping (computing), Bootstrapping (compilers) and Bootstrapping (linguistics) in the main article, because they are certainly covered by the "common pattern" of the concept of bootstrapping. At the same time, maybe deleting them from the disambiguation page (this can be debated).
6. Keeping those links in the disambiguation page, that are unrelated to the "common pattern" of the concept of bootstrapping
7. Each "subarticle" (e.g. Bootstrapping (computing), Bootstrapping (compilers) and Bootstrapping (linguistics), Bootstrapping (finance)) may have a link to the disambiguation page, and also a link to the main page ({{see also}} template, {{for}} template).

An analogy: there is also another concept that has many special, but related faces. It is shamanism. The concept is debated: African sourceres, mediums are usually not called "shaman" (because they do not undertake a soul travel), while South-Amrican, Siberian, Bushman ad Eskimo mythological specialist are called shamans, because they share some common patterns (e.g. the soul travel).

Now the articles about shamanism are organoized in the following way:

1. There is a main article about Shamanism, it is this that has the default redirects, e.g. shaman redirects to shamanism.
2. The main article explains the "common pattern" and it links to "subarticles" like Shamanism in Siberia, Shamanism among Eskimo peoples, Shamanistic remnants in Hungarian folklore etc.
3. there is a disambiguation page for Shaman (disambiguation). It is rather a marginal page: no default redirects point to it. It enumerates such unrelated meanings like computer programs etc. named as "shaman".

I am not an expert in the following fields (far from that), but I think that bootstrapping is not the only concept that is "problematic" somehow and still has its article.

As far as I know, life has no "official" definition, we have no bulletproof method for recognizing every possible life form, still, we have a main article about life. And it has further links to the many faces to the plethora of life forms. I admit. there is also a Life (disambiguation), but it is rather marginal.

M-theory is another interesting topic. As far as I know, M-theory is not yet developed as a single theory. We do not know its "centre" yet. What we know are its "faces", special manifestations. Still, we have a main article on M-theory.

Physis (talk) 19:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Physis I think Physis is correct in that this is a fairly unique situation, and I think his solution is ideal. I also find it funny that the length of text in his comment is probably about double the length of the article proposed. The above is stated so eloquently that I think Physis would be the ideal candidate to write the article, and I'd say be bold, make the changes, and then we can go from there. ce1984 (talk) 23:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I second that. :-) Borock (talk) 17:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. So I converted Bootstrapping/Bootstrap from a disambiguation page to a full article. The Bootstrap (word origin) article is now redundant and may be deleted. The Bootstrap article still needs work, expanding each section with a sentence or two to summarize each referenced main page article. Greensburger (talk) 22:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's only a redirect anyway. Besides, the actual page, Bootstrapping, is fine as a disambiguation page. Green caterpillar (talk) 13:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First try for justifying the motivation. Thank You for the reassuring words, and I am sorry for the long absence. During that, I was trying to write a first sketch with primary topic about bootstrapping. Because of Wikipedia's verifiability policy, the main question was: is there at last one notable source, which definitely states that the several manifestations of bootstrapping are indeed deeply related (and not only superficially)? If this were not verified by notable authors, then new article would raise huge edit wars. But, for luck, I have found a deciding reference: Richard Dawkins definitely claims in his book River out of Eden, that embryogenesis is a bootstrapping process, with the same underlying pattern as the booting process of punched tape fed computers of the 1950s. Thus, the relatedness of at least two different manifestations have been justified by a notable author. According to this, I have prepared a first try, how the motivation for primary topic artcle can be justified: User:Physis/Bootstrapping. It is still in embryonic stage (at least its stage fits well with its own topic), but I hope it can help to prevent at least an edit war about the overall verifiability of the very idea. Physis (talk) 15:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Stifle (talk) 15:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adiposopathy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This topic lacks notarity.

Adiposopathy is based on the work of one research scientist who it seems is trying to replace metabolic syndrome and obesity with his own term.

• It doesn't appear in a spell check.
• It is not recognized by Uptodate.
• A google search find 1,630 hits for adiposopathy well there are 33,600,000 for obesity and 22,700,000 for overweight.
• A pubmed search find 8 articles for adiposopathy well there are 112280 for obesity and 90747 for overweight.
• The diagnostic criteria are the same as those for obesity / metabolic syndrome

--Doc James (talk) 19:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — I originally saw this page as verifiable but a google search since has shown me otherwise. If PubMed doesn't find it, it's not a real condition in my opinion. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs) 22:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. 8 Pubmed hits and 102 Google scholar hits show more than enough notability. The fact that "obesity" has millions of hits is no surprise, because it is an everyday word. The real question is whether the two words are truly synonymous. If that can be shown, then the articles can be merged, but there is no reason for deletion. --Itub (talk) 10:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The 8 PubMed hits and 102 Google scholar hits are essentially from one author, Bays HG, trying to form a new term that is already covered by obesity and metabolic syndrome. The talk page discussion can be found here all the way to the bottom. Several experienced editors here are skeptical of this terms notability. Essentially, the article is trying to describe "sick fat" as different to "healthy fat" but it makes no claims of how to do so. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs) 12:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

77 of the scholar hits are not authored by Bays, but by people citing Bays or using the term themselves. --Itub (talk) 12:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete One of my biggest concerns with adiposopathy is how it is defined. When I first came to this page it was full of passages that emphasized that BMI was a poor measure of obesity risk and that being "fat" is fine as long as you have "healthy" fat rather then "sick" fat. So I looked and worked on this page until I arrived at the part that outlined the definition of adiposopathy. And the diagnostic criteria are no different then those of metabolic syndrome / obesity. No mention is made in the definition of how to determine if fat is health or sick.

Major criteria

• Elevated waist circumference or BMI
• Onset or worsening of high blood sugar with weight gain
• Onset or worsening of high blood pressure with weight gain
• Onset or worsening of dyslipidemia with weight gain

I have added one line to the article on obesity which sums this page. Adiposopathy refers to dysfunction of fat tissue. Doc James (talk) 20:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Neologism by single researcher. Not widely accepted, not necessarily a useful concept unless so identified by reputable secondary sources. JFW | T@lk 22:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete nn neologism RogueNinja_talk 23:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is tantamount to original research, despite the "references". Even the creator of the article admits that there are currently no diagnostic criteria. ukexpat (talk) 14:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Since when do we have deletion criteria such as "no diagnostic criteria", "not a useful concept", and "same as..."? (The latter one can be a criterion for merging.) We are not here to evaluate the scientific value of this neologism. We only have to evaluate whether it is notable enough for inclusion. The only valid reason I see for deletion is "non-notable neologism". I would agree if the author were a crackpot that no one bothered citing or if no one else bothered using his recently coined term. Yet I've shown 77 third-party Google scholar hits that show that he has been cited and that others have used the term. Some may say 77 is not such a large number, but I think it's pretty significant for such a recent term, and while Wikipedia is not a newspaper, it does attempt to be as up-to-date as possible. --Itub (talk) 15:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Original research is clearly a valid reason to delete. My comment about "no diagnostic criteria" was in relation to OR, ie that the lack of diagnostic is evidence (albeit not conclusive) that the article is an extension of the creator's OR. – ukexpat (talk) 15:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Original research is not a reason for deletion, but for cleanup. If the Wikipedia article has original research (in the Wikipedia sense of the word), it can be fixed by trimming. But anything that has been published in a journal is not original research from the Wikipedia point of view. Sure, it is original in the more general sense, because that's what journals are for! --Itub (talk) 16:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete without prejudice. At this point, still a non-notable neologism with no serious acceptance in the literature and no clearcut definition; and there do seem to me to be original research issues here. There are no papers yet backing up Bays and his ideas, and the term is not yet being taken up seriously in the literature. Wikipedia is not a venue for the cutting edge. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or Delete - I think there is indeed a gray area at this point. I think a paragraph summarizing this article's possible differences could be merged into the obesity article. However, the reason why I said "or Delete" was because of the original research. It is undeniable that the author said there is no diagnostic criteria yet. I'll also cite WP:CRYSTAL on a fine line due to the fact that since this term is not yet widely accepted, it is a n.n. neologism, and as stated by Orangemike, we cannot start the acceptance trend here at Wikipedia. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 08:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus to delete. If a merge is desired, it can be discussed further at Talk:Arnold Kim. Stifle (talk) 12:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arnold Kim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No notability outside of his website MacRumors. - Icewedge (talk) 22:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: ...his extremely widely-read website that was recently profiled in the New York Times. Binarybits (talk) 22:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP1E; his website is notable, he is not. No articles give him personally more than one or two sentences. - Icewedge (talk) 22:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having a widely read website isn't "one event." He has been covered in mainstream media multiple times, including in the New York Times and the LA Times. The NYT story was a profile of him, not just a write-up of the website. The fact that he's notable because of founding MacRumors doesn't make him non-notable. Bill Gates is only famous because he founded Microsoft, but we wouldn't merge the Bill Gates entry into the Microsoft entry. Binarybits (talk) 04:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to MacRumors. The website may have gained notability, but that notability is not inherited. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to MacRumors. 70.110.29.236 (talk) 23:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to MacRumors as he doesn't assert notability, the website does. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 23:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge --NZQRC (talk) 17:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The New York Times and Silicon Alley Insider articles referenced in the article show notability - they are more about Kim than about his web site. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I believe the sources satisfy the basic criteria of WP:BIO. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirected to All That#DVD Release by creator (User:Wikialexdx). the wub "?!" 14:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All That DVDs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Per the article: "All That is released on DVD by Paramount Home Video. As of now, there are no announcements of All That's DVD releases yet". This is unverified speculation and WP:CRYSTAL. Ros0709 (talk) 22:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - even if there was any information on this subject, it still wouldn't be notable enough for its own article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mars2035 (talk • contribs) 23:49, 24 August, 2008 (UTC)
• Delete: Very little content, and subject is not notable enough for its own article. John Sloan (talk) 00:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non notible and also WP:CRYSTAL RockManQ (talk) 02:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete. Article creator just blocked by myself as a hoax-only account, therefore this 'band' can safely be deemed non-notable. Esteffect (talk) 23:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Planet Hate The President (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable band Editor437 (talk) 22:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete, A7 - no claim of notability made on the current page. No results on AllMusic.com, and a grand total of 0 (zero) ghits. Google isn't the end-all-be-all of notability, but it's unthinkable that a notable band wouldn't be mentioned in at least one online discography. Badger Drink (talk) 23:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The assertion of notability is that its going on a tor, so you can't delete it under A7, but it Badger is right, if it was even 0.0000000000000000001% as notable as a band say Linkin Park, then they should be mentioned in ONE wesite, even their own website. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 23:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, probably speedy. Just saying they are going on a tour doesn't mean it will actually happen. No label listed, no references at all. Miserably and utterly fails WP:BAND. Get the hook. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 23:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep (but rewrite). --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 19:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transformationalism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unreferenced article which is, nonetheless, a massive linkfarm. "Transformational Christianity is a very young movement; since it has few structures, creeds, or spokespeople, its future direction is still unclear." [...] "While there is as yet no consensus definition of Transformational Christianity, the following links appear to reflect usage roughly in line with at least some aspect of this article"

So: WP:OR, WP:V and WP:N issues openly and self-referentially admitted. Guy (Help!) 22:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Hi Guy, So, if we trimmed the links down into specific references for the various points, would that help? The article was written before the current Citation policy, so I admit it needs cleanup...Drernie (talk) 14:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now - I have no idea whether this article is well-sourced or not, or whether this is a significant trans-denominational movement or a non-notable (unsuccessful) attempt to create one. The unreferenced tag is not quite correct, but the sources are expressed as external links. What this article needs is in-line citations of the works relied upon for each statement, or at least a list of the sources used to write it. When that is done it may be possible to judge its merits. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rewrite. Only primary sources are used.jonathon (talk) 20:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Rewrite The article needs to be cleaned up using some of those external link documents (if they're reliable sources) as inline citations. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. There is a rough consensus to delete the article, however there doesn't appear to be a consensus about whether there should be a redirect. PhilKnight (talk) 18:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nicky Blair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Nicky Blair has no claim to be included in an encyclopedia; he has done nothing of significance in his own right (yet), and only achieves newspaper coverage as a result of the tabloid desire to flog papers by including tittle tattle about anyone connected with anyone famous. One could justify a passing reference to this young man in the articles concerning both his mother and father, but not an article in his own right; indeed, the current article contains nothing of substance. A search on his name should therefore result in a redirect to a parent. The Sage of Stamford (talk) 21:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. fails WP:N. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete People are not notable by association. Remove the "son of the former Prime Minister" information from the article and he is just a graduate from Oxford - not worthy of an article. Leaving as a redirect is against WP:NOTCRYSTAL, its assuming someone may want to look him up one day. MortimerCat (talk) 00:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no independent notability. A mention in his father's article is sufficient. TerriersFan (talk) 01:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete notible enough to be mentioned in his father's article or his mothers, but not notible enough to be in his own article RockManQ (talk) 02:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per the comments above BountyHunter2008 (talk) 19:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• REdirect to his father. His only achievemetn is to be co-chair of a university labour club. I do not think we regard that as notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure)  Asenine  18:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Claire Peacock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Original research of a non-notable fictional character. Tavix (talk) 22:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to whatever wikis are deemed most appropriate (TvWiki being the most obvious, I'm sure there're some others on Wikia that'd work). Include a simple paragraph on the main List of Coronation Street characters article. The detailed exploits of a character who has been on a forty-year show for a grand total of five years are, barring dramatic real-world hysteria of the Who Shot J.R.? variety, unencyclopedic in the utmost. Badger Drink (talk) 23:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep While article needs cleanup, the character appearing on the show for five years is a definite indication of notability. Edward321 (talk) 04:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Frickative is experimenting in her Sandbox and they are good a finding references, because i saw how they improved Maria Connor but if it dosen't improve redirect to List of Coronation Street characters. User:Notdoppler 25 August 2008 (UTC)
• Strong keep, one day and a complete rewrite later [5], moving the focus of the article to a real-world perspective, backed up by reliable, third-party sources, and focusing on aspects of the character that have had demonstrable impact outside of the in-universe context of the show, including reaction from real-world advocacy groups etc. Frickative 21:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep notable improvement, meaning the nominator's points are no longer valid.GunGagdin^Moan 11:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this is now an excellent soap character article.--UpDown (talk) 11:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Stifle (talk) 15:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Al-Bor'ey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Included in this nomination

• Iman Hijo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Both of these articles are contested prods and fail WP:N and WP:BLP#1E. The death of these children is tragic, yes, but they themselves have done nothing of note worthy of being included here. Wikipedia is not a memorial, and these articles currently only serve as propaganda due to their heavily biased nature. I'd speedy them both for A7, but unfortunately the age of the articles and the previous prods require that we go through process. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I am the one who created these articles and I'd like to mention these points:

• There were a lot of victims died during second intifada and I agree with you that we can't write about these people just because they died. Iman Hijo and Mohammad al-boraey are special cases. These childrens' death got special attention from media (both arabian and international ones) for many reasons and some of them can be concluded from the articles.
• mohammad al-bor'ey name can be written in english by many ways and I don't know which way of writing is the most famous so I used my own spelling for his name. Therefore, if someone searched for his name in english by a specific spelling, he/she would find a few results. Mohammad can be written as: Mohammad, Mohammed, Muhammad, Muhammed, Mohamad and so on. Al-Bor'ey can be written like: Al-Bor'ey, Al-Bora'ey, Al-Boraey, AlBor'ey, Al Bor'ey ..etc. --Osm agha (talk) 19:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete tragic not an encyclopedic topic. The incident can be mentioned as an illustration in a wider article if required. A biography of the individual is anappropriate.--Troikoalogo (talk) 21:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BLP#1E Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This AfD is a classic example of systemic bias, which we should try to avoid in Wikipedia. These articles should be expanded to address the concerns here, not deleted. It's unfortunate that most of the reliable sources are in Arabic, which may give the (false) impression that they fail WP:N. If these articles are deleted, then by the same argument so should most of the biographies in Category:Israeli casualties during the Al-Aqsa Intifada (and probably a whole shower of others I haven't got time to look for). One may also note the implication (I'm sure unintended by the nominator) that so many children have been killed by the IDF that the death of one such victim is no longer, ipso facto, notable. There is, incidentally, no such link as WP:BLP#1E (it's WP:BLP1E). NSH001 (talk) 11:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted per CSD G11 by Athaenara. Non-admin closure. Gr1st (talk) 11:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2Checkout.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Web checkout company that seems to fail WP:ORG due to no coverage in independent reliable sources. Parts of it are written like an advertisement, and the bits that aren't are unsourced weasel-worded criticism. Doesn't seem to be any sourceable encyclopedic content. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 21:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Tagged for speedy deletion as blatant advertising. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 02:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. No sources. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 10:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mi Final Feliz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article is a pure hoax - it is about inexistent song, and chart positions references are totally fictious Cathody (talk) 21:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and monitor contributions of creator Damn ran (talk · contribs). JuJube (talk) 22:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Note that the chart included int he article is actually cribbed from My Happy Ending. An unconvincing hoax. -- Whpq (talk) 23:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Hoax. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 15:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 19:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

God's Word (bible translation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

An article on a Bible translation sourced almost exclusively from its own website and publishers. Google returns exactly five hits for "God's Word" +beck +glessler (the originators). God's Word is a generic phrase in discussing Bibles so Google is hard to interpret, but I'm not seeing evidence of non-trivial independent sources for this. Guy (Help!) 21:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator of this article, it saddens me to have to say this, but I agree with Guy's points. During the 20th century, there were loads of translations released. Some stuck around, such as the NIV, NKJV, or NASB. Others faded away, such as this one. Thinking back on it now, it was really tough to find sources (outside the various publishers) for the article due to the obscurity of the translation. As for the title, that's not really our problem allthough it trips up google searches, as Guy has said. In other words, let's delete this for the reasons I (and Guy) have laid out. - Thanks, Hoshie 22:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep While the article author's input normally would be normative at this point, this claims to be a real Bible translation, endorsed by elements of at least one major Christian denomination. What's more, it was both a) published and b) referenced in at least one independent RS that documents Bible translations. It's notable and should be kept, even if it wasn't the next NIV. Jclemens (talk) 17:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I did some Google Scholar and Google Books searching and I found a fair bit to establish common usage. The results need to be weeded through and integrated appropriately into the article, but my initial impression that this was notable has been reinforced by my searches. Jclemens (talk) 04:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, notability not established. Stifle (talk) 14:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but tag as reliant on a single source, where there may be a conflict of interest. I do not know this translation, but would suggest that most translations of the all-time best selling book are notable. It ought to be possible to produce citations for criticisms of the work from reviewers at the time of publication. However that was before the Internet was widely used, so that they may not be readily accessible. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This version of the Bible is included in the widely distributed and used electronic Bible, "eSword," which may help establish notability. Additionally, Google returns a few other sources that need to be reviewed when searching for "American Translation Bible," which is another label attached to God's Word Bible in this article. There is some confusion about that label that needs clarification, as the search for American Translation Bible returns much more information about the 1939 translation by JM Powis Smith and Edgar J. Goodspeed. Heyjohnboy (talk) 14:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This was one of the first in the modern wave of dynamic equivalence/paraphrase translations. (Finding a cite for that requires one to dig thru hardcopy journals from sixties thru eighties.)(If inclusion in Bible Study Software makes it notable, then I'll point out that it is included in Logos Scholar 3) jonathon (talk) 20:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I would call a Bible software package an independent secondary source, provided it was published by an organization other than the one which sponsored the translation. Logos is certainly the grand-daddy of the field, as well. Jclemens (talk) 00:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Maxim (☎) 21:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oklahomans for Responsible Government (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable 501 group. Hemlock Martinis (talk) 05:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A Yahoo search turned up some RS mentions. Here is one article. Steve Dufour (talk) 06:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, campaign groups like this are a dime a dozen. Stifle (talk) 14:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wish that was the standard, but it's not. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 14:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 16:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 16:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 21:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm relisting this because I'd like to see a bit more discussion of its notability before a decision is made. Bear in mind the idea that notability is not temporary. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 21:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Here's another one. They're getting lots of briefer mentions in Google news archives.--chaser - t 22:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete. The standard at WP:ORG is "significant coverage in reliable, secondary independent sources." So far I count one such profile article; the mentions in the others are purely incidental (and there are only 4 of them). I think this one's on the margin, but tending towards non-notability. RayAYang (talk) 12:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - partisan-funded short-term astroturfing front seeking publicity/promo through Wikipedia. The Exec Director of this suddenly formed "advocacy group" is the Oklahoma Regional Director for the conservative political campaign group "American Majority" [6]. Note that this is the first and only article created by Downsokc (talk · contribs) -- immediately upon registration. --HidariMigi (talk) 03:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Stifle (talk) 15:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jamvaya Mata (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article seems to be an original research with no solid verifications of claims. Reference given is unreliable. (In fact reference itself needs references for verification.) Hitro 10:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 16:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 16:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 18:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non notable with no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 21:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete currently unverifiable OR, no relevant online sources and the only reference cited by the author is an inscription (primary source). - Icewedge (talk) 02:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No reliable sources found. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 21:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ee Irupatthiyonnaam Noottaandu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Apparently fails future film notability guidelines. Article created by one editor and one anonmymos IP stating "film will be released in 2009". Google search of film name finds nothing to indicate principle filming has even begun.. Google searches of the "aka' find "rumored" , "trying to recreate", and a number blog posts. No prejudice towards recreation when reliable sources can show that filming has already begun. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as above, I too have been unable to find any confirmed information of its existence. No prejudice to recreation when information is confirmed. TravellingCari 21:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No reliable sources can can confirm its notability, feel free to recreate if reliable sources are found that establish notability. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 23:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- TravellingCari 00:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:CRYSTAL - no reliable sources, no listings, practically zip on google (or anywhere else) - This is speculation without sources. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 03:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  19:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reb Moshe of Tzfat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable teacher. Article was created by its subject. All sources I can find are either to his own websites, myspace, or youtube, or similar sites. Corvus cornix_talk 21:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• (Comment): The article is not being written by it's own subject! There is more information to be added during the next few days.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TeodorTodorov (talk • contribs) [7]
  • So are you saying that User:Reb Moshe of Tzfat is not Reb Moshe of Tzfat? In that case, the account needs to be blocked for impersonating another person. Corvus cornix_talk 21:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not notable and huge COI issues --T-rex 21:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That this isn't a notable teacher is a personal opinion, needs to be proven. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TeodorTodorov (talk • contribs) 21:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not the way it works in Wikipedia. It is incumbent on the article's writer to prove notability, not for others to prove he isn't notable. Corvus cornix_talk 21:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Are you into jewish orthodox studies to know if someone is a notable teacher? The article is to be edited until it contains only biographical infos, and no connection to any kind of advertisement. reliable sources and quotations are to be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TeodorTodorov (talk • contribs) 21:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC) [8][reply]
      • Besides, the main editor of the article is TeodorTodorov and that is not Reb Moshe of Tzfat— Preceding unsigned comment added by TeodorTodorov (talk • contribs) [9]
        • What I am is an experienced Wikipedia contributor who knows that Wikipedia's notability criteria require that reliable sources be provided as to the subject's notability. If you can find reliable sources that prove that he's well-known in Jewish Orthodox studies, then please do so. This discussion is open for five days, we can revisit the notability any time in the interim. Corvus cornix_talk 21:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Fair enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TeodorTodorov (talk • contribs) 21:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - he is NN and notability needs to be established, not everyone is notable until proved otherwise. The page now is entirely self-published materials and reads more like a MY SPACE self promotion. No significant external sources or citations were produced, it is COI and self-promotional. We have deleted many Outreach rabbis in the past- even those with brief mentions in local newsletters or brief interviews on Jewish talk shows.--Jayrav (talk) 20:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment As always, in order to include an article on a subject the subject has to be notable. The basic requirement to establish notability for an individual is to show that the person has been discussed substantially in multiple reliable sources. Religious and general medias ources are permitted, and there's some latitude as to what's an appropriate source to establish notability in the field. Right now most sources are internal. Even if sourced properly, article would need to be significantly cut because relatively little of its content is covered in outside sources and an article on an individual or organization needs to reflect its independent coverage, it can't be self-promotional. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 01:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Firstly, based on the self-disclosed information on User Reb Moshe of Tzfat (talk · contribs)'s page it is clear that he is also the subject of the Reb Moshe of Tzfat article. He also fails WP:NOTABILITY because while he may be a nice young rabbi, he is no different to thousands (probably even tens of thousands by now in the 21st century) of other Orthodox Jewish outreach rabbis performing the mission of Kiruv ("Outreach to mon-Orthodox Jews) such as the Chabad shluchim, and others, including many belonging to the Breslov (Hasidic dynasty), and many of them have websites and blogs and would still not merit full Wikipedia articles. At this time, this article clearly violates Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (formerly known as WP:VANITY), WP:NOTMYSPACE, WP:NOTADVERTISING, and even the user's user page violates WP:NOT#WEBHOST. There are also serious problems that a subjects so relatively current does not have WP:RS and hence fails WP:BIO. IZAK (talk) 06:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - This article probably should be deleted based on our notability criteria. However, I'm concerned that the coldness of this process has been a bit unwelcoming and has unnecessarily chased off a new editor with unintentional newbie biting. I see the new editor has blanked his user page and not returned. --MPerel 18:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Miri: The only thing that User TeodorTodorov (talk · contribs) blanked is two lines about himself: "Teodor Todorov (1982- ) born in Gabrovo, Bulgaria. Currently studies Business Administration at the University of Saarland in Saarbrücken, Germany."[10] and why would he blank that if it was true? What is there to hide? While generally I agree that newbies should be welcomed, in this case it seems that User TeodorTodorov (talk · contribs) right from the outset has been breaking rules. Just look at the User talk:TeodorTodorov page and you will see that his first article/contribution was about himself! It was quickly nominated for deletion, and instead of learning the lesson he then proceeds to do the exact same thing with the subject of a rabbi. This is puzzling. Was he doing that so that the rabbi (Reb Moshe of Tzfat) should be forever miscontrued and lose his chances for a good article or was he up to some other trick? It seems that User TeodorTodorov (talk · contribs) is not as clueless as he is letting on. If he has genuine questions there are many places to learn, such as at WP:SANDBOX or WP:TALKJUDAISM. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 19:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Education in Taoyuan County. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bade Junior High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete- for non-notability. There are so many Junior Highs in any given country. Are we going to list them all? Also, page was created as a massive page creation effort by a suspected sockpuppet. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 21:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 23:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge redirect to Education in Taoyuan County as with all the other ones this user has created. --Ged UK (talk) 21:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge redirect to Education in Taoyuan County for consistency. TerriersFan (talk) 23:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Redirect Junior High schools normally are not notable. I'd support information and a section on the referenced page above--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge At first I was confused, I wondered why this article had no references and wasn't linked. Then suddenly I realized it was a Taiwanese school. Ha! My mistake! But yeah, merge it to Education in Taoyuan County. Lady Galaxy 23:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 21:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great Grandma's Rocking Chair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A seemingly non-notable book. Schuym1 (talk) 20:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: seemingly one of those "a dime a dozen" book. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 20:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete All glinks link to sites that use text from WP, can't find a single review. Fails Book notability. --Ged UK (talk) 20:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unnotable. Its a picture book, so I honestly don't think a review would be available. Tavix (talk) 22:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Not redirecting as I think it is an unlikely search term, although any editor can feel free to create such a redirect. Stifle (talk) 12:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Three levels of government in Australia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:OR-filled essay on Australian government. Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 23:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect to Government of Australia: Topic in question already covered in various articles on Australian Government. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 20:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It is an essay and it is already covered in Government of Australia Tavix (talk) 22:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Government of Australia per Arbiteroftruth as all info is covered there, also, some Grade 4 kid could type in the title. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 23:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect to Government of Australia as this is an essay. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect, article is an essay, not an encyclopædia article. All material covered at Government of Australia, as far as I can tell. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep, bearing in mind the renomination. Stifle (talk) 15:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Knight Online (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article lacks verifiable, third-party sources establishing notability. There were two serious issues from the previous AfD nomination. First, I believe the arguments to keep was not backed by any sources and seemed more as WP:ITSNOTABLE claims. Second, the previous AfD was non-admin closed as a keep despite the fact that there was no clear consensus on keeping the article, nor was it a snowball keep. I decided to pass on sending it to WP:DRV and instead re-nominating it for AfD as it was not worth it for admin to look at it, it may have been construed as WP:POINT, and other users will be able to pass appropriate judgment per the argument and sources given. MuZemike (talk) 19:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MuZemike (talk) 19:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Not sure if the first source is reliable, but if it is 5 million subscribers IS notible and it should be Rewritten. However, 4 of the 6 links are dead links, and the article itself has numerous issues (most of it sounds like it's written as an add). RockManQ (talk) 02:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was my main problem with the article in the first AfD. I don't know how verifiable the data from voig.com is. (I'm guessing the website pertains to tracking to subscriber data of some sort.) MuZemike (talk) 05:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - It's only been a few weeks since the first AFD. Did anything significant change? If you do not agree with the consensus of the first AFD, then putting it through AFDs until it gets deleted is not the way to go. Oh, and per the previous afd: "Keep - Being the #4 MMORPG in the world cuts it for me, regardless of anything else. Even if the numbers are a bit off mark, #4 plus or minus two would still make this topic notable." User:Krator (t c) 09:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And if I went through WP:DRV, then I would have looked like a WP:DICK wasting admins' time trying to make a WP:POINT. I suppose it was lose-lose for me in this case. Oh, well. MuZemike (talk) 14:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Check out the articles on IGN's[11] and GameZone's[12] site. I believe there is enough to make this at least a Start-class article. Just clean out whatever does not comply with our guidelines. These books[13][14] [15][16] contain trivial information (which, to be clear, would not help establish notability) that could further flesh out the article. Parties interested in having this article remain without trouble on Wikipedia should quickly integrate them into the article. Jappalang (talk) 00:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. It's snowing, no point in prolonging this one. Black Kite 08:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert M. Carter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

It's true that this article has a lot of sources. However none of them discuss Dr. Carter in depth. What is really happening is that the article is the result of two forces: One, Dr. Carter himself trying to promote himself. Two, environmental activists trying to discredit him as a global warming skeptic. There is also a news story about Dr. Carter's work with geological core samples -- but that is still not about him. Northwestgnome (talk) 19:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Relatively well sourced, though more should definitely be done. Subject seems notable, and the only "attack" in the article seems to be one sentence sourced to The Sydney Morning Herald about his standing amongst climate scientists. AniMate 20:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the only thing his critics could find was a trivial statement by a newspaper reporter shows how non-notable he is.Northwestgnome (talk) 20:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Extra comment I have recently been tagging articles on scientists as non-notable. Many of them just give employment and publishing information. There seems to be an attitude on WP that working in the field of scientific research makes a person more notable than, say, managing a bank or filling people's teeth. Is there a policy that says: "WP is not a Who's Who?" Northwestgnome (talk) 20:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For instance Dr. Carter's article states: "Carter has published more than 100 scientific papers...." Duh. That's his job. Northwestgnome (talk) 20:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's also (1) a statistic that helps show how well he's done that job, and (2) an indicator of how well known he is within his field. JulesH (talk) 20:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What if there were an article on a police officer which said: "Officer Smith has written more than 10,000 speeding tickets..."? :-) Northwestgnome (talk) 20:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

False comparison. Writing speeding tickets doesn't make someone notable. Deamon138 (talk) 22:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nor does writing papers. Northwestgnome (talk) 23:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it does. Its one of the major criteria in judging the notability of an academic, especially the number of citations of the papers. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"That's his job". Not really. The key job for a scientist is to do science. The publication is not nearly as important as the science behind the publication. Publishing papers is the way science is documented and communicated to the world. Oh, almost forgot:KeepWVhybrid (talk) 22:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree 100%. For a scientist to be notable in the WP sense his work has to be commented on in secondary sources, not it merely reported that he (or she) is doing it. Northwestgnome (talk) 23:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree in part with the above. Nobody (except the offender) reads speeding tickets. Publishing articles is indeed what academics do (they have to, their performance is evaluated on the basis of published papers). If an academic publishes a thousand papers but there is no evidence anybody ever paid any attention, then that academic is not notable. However, if evidence exists that these papers have made a big impact in the field (for instance, by being heavily cited by other academics - not just a few dozen citations, mind) then such an academic would be notable. Having said all this, this discussion does not really belong in this particular AfD, but at Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics). --Crusio (talk) 08:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment One of the reasons for some of these articles is probably that List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming only includes noteable inviduals so people create articles if they feel someone is noteable (and they are deleted if they are not). I've informed the contributors there of the deletion discussion. Nil Einne (talk) 20:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been finding lots of non-notable scientists not related to global warming (which I am against), or anything else "controversial." Northwestgnome (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep For anyone following the GW debate he is notable enough for inclusion, IMHO. --GoRight (talk) 20:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep For once i agree with GoRight ... Carter is one of the most well-known global warming sceptics to anyone following the GW debate. As for whether he is notable as a scientist in his own regard, is more dubious. His Op-Ed in the Telegraph about warming stopping in 1998 is (in-)famous.[17]. He has been the subject of at least one biographical article [18] (reprinted here). He was an expert witness in the Dimmock v Secretary of State for Education and Skills trial. etc.--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I might well be wrong about his notability. However, that is not really a biographical article. He is interviewed and some info is given on him but then the author goes on, into what is almost Gonzo journalism, about his own feelings about global warming. Northwestgnome (talk) 23:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: while not hugely reliable, a Google test shows 12,200 hits, and as said above, he has 100 papers, which isn't bad. He is notable enough imo anyway. The very fact that there are two sets of people, pro- and con- AGW theory, that make this article controversial, shows his notability. Deamon138 (talk) 22:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: passes the professor test; enough sources discussing/mentioning him as an expert demonstrate notability. Oren0 (talk) 00:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 01:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - plenty of notable coverage on this guy. We don't need to agree with him to acknowledge that he is notable.--Lester 05:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Plenty of secondary sources. The article is quite horrible and should be completely rewritten, but WP:BIO seems to be met. --Crusio (talk) 08:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Bob Carter is one of a handful of prominent Australian climate change skeptics who have driven the skeptic side of the debate, has appeared in the Australian media on many occasions, and there should be a Wiki page for individuals who are interested in information on him GrahamP (talk) 10:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notability certainly isn't an issue in this article. Content? Sure, it kind of reads like a resume--but that's an editing issue and not an AfD issue. And certainly for collaboration, it's a start--and a darned good one at that. Many editors here start with articles that have much, much less information and edit them to robust articles. Sure, you're not supposed to "create an article about yourself" (and I'm not saying that's what happened here) but if it did happen in this case, I'm okay with it because of the notability of the subject. Now editors can fly with it!--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, I'm new here so correct me if i'm wrong but it seems like this could be a Snowball Keep? RockManQ (talk) 02:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Absolutely. I'd do so myself but I'm "involved." Oren0 (talk) 02:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep. I do not see this case as passing WP:PROF but there appears to be sufficient coverage of him in the newsmedia to pass WP:BIO (although not as much coverage as I expected after reading the above debate; a filtered GoogleNews search returns 16 hits[19]). Nsk92 (talk) 03:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Anyone who wants the content to merge somewhere can drop me a line. Stifle (talk) 12:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Parasitic state (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable "concept". Only one reference, to an unreliable source. Standard Google search shows less than 3k hits, most of which pertain to biological and ecological topics. Google Scholar confirms the lack of widespread usage past this single source. Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This seems to be a made-up concept of the anarco-capitalists. Could be merged to their article. Northwestgnome (talk) 19:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, it dates back at least as far as Lenin and has been used by communists as well. EVCM (talk) 19:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the article is about the concept that all states are parasitic, not about the "parasitic states" themselves. It might be okay as a wikionary item. Northwestgnome (talk) 20:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lenin (September 1917) asserted that any developed government bureaucracy of his period was parasitic. Any = no need for a separate text beyond the scope of state. NVO (talk) 22:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he asserted the bureaucracy (the people, the "ruling elite") of "capitalist" states are "parasitics" or even "parasites", but he fid not assert that state per se is "parasitic". If you think otherwise, pleas provide exact citation.Biophys (talk) 00:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By that same logic, taxation as theft and taxation as slavery would not be articles either. EVCM (talk) 22:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. One-line fringe theories should be reviewed in principal texts on the subject. P.S. Trust me, I'm an accountant. NVO (talk) 23:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Was Leninism a fringe theory? EVCM (talk) 23:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At one time it was. Northwestgnome (talk) 01:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lenin's theories were fringe. Whatever was made of it after his death is quite a different story. NVO (talk) 01:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and Merge useful information (if any) into anarco-capitalist RockManQ (talk) 02:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep/merge/redirect Mathmo ^Talk 03:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. OR and gross misinterpretation of Lenin.Biophys (talk) 05:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps you'd care to enlighten us with the correct interpretation so as to back up your point? I think it's a valid interpretation, which the references amply demonstrate. EVCM (talk) 05:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The expression "parasitic state" perhaps belong to Cat Farmer cited in ref. 1. Lenin did not consider state as a "parasite". The "parasites" or "harmful insects" are people - "ruling classes" of the capitalistic (democratic) states according to him. Lenin was not against the state. He simply wanted a different type of state, "the dictatorship of proletariat" or a super-state, also known as a "totalitarian state".Biophys (talk) 22:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lenin thought that the state would "wither away" once communism were achieved. But, more references to the "parasitic state": http://flag.blackened.net/rocker/marx.htm , https://doi.org/10.1007%2FBF01121238 , http://www.jstor.org/pss/656913 , etc. Just google "parasitic state" and "Lenin." That recurs throughout communist literature. EVCM (talk) 01:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Stifle (talk) 12:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Myth of National Defense (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable book. Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, one of the most important collections of essays related to private defense agencies and related anarcho-capitalist topics. EVCM (talk) 19:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The book appears notable, with many hits. Leonard^(Bloom) 20:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It may be an important book but before a neutral article can be written on WP the book has to be reviewed and commented on. Otherwise the WP article ends up being just a promotion for the book. Northwestgnome (talk) 20:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Week Keep. Reviewed by Policy Magazine, which may form the basis of a useful article. JulesH (talk) 20:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete The notability guideline for books gives some basic guidance on what we should be looking for. Reviews are largely insufficient to generate notability for books since most books are reviewed by some body or another. If a broad swath of newspapers and journals decide to review a book, then more of a case can be made. In the case of a "popular book", we could make a case to keep it if the NY Times, LA times, Wa. Post, etc all decided to review it. For a book like this, if Reason Magazine, the American Conservative and other niche magazines (just spitballing to think of right leaning libertarian publications with some clout) reviewed the book, I could see bending WP:NB. as such, it is a work produced by a libertarian thinktank on a subject near and dear to libertarians: divesting the government of its control over some sphere of power. I wouldn't go so far as to call it "one of the most important..." of anything. Free to Choose it's not. without those reviews or some secondary source making the claims above about importance in the field, we should look to other criteria in the books notability guideline. Protonk (talk) 00:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 10:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 10:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete This doesn't meet any of the notability criteria at WP:BK - some reviews in mass media, major awards, etc are needed to establish notabilty. This book ranks 736,090th on Amazon.com's sales rank, which strongly suggests that it hasn't gotten much interest since it was released in 2003. The above keep arguments seem to basically be WP:ILIKEIT. As a note, Google searching book titles isn't a good way to establish notability as such searches always return hundreds of book seller websites which have the book on their databases. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep per Protonk, but these swing it towards keeping: http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/myth-nationaldefense.html & http://www.sovereignwarriors.com/the-myth-of-national-defense/. Mathmo ^Talk 03:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep Article needs a rewrite. The topic of the book is probably more notable than the book itself. jonathon (talk) 20:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was everything has been speedy deleted CSD A3 (and/or A5). Gwen Gale (talk) 06:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of opinions from the Federal Reporter, Second Series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:IINFO. Some request applies as the the third series: all included links within the page receive the same outcome as this page. I don't have the time to nominate all 999. Leonard^(Bloom) 18:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cascade Delete of all associated, violating pages- Redundant page that is not needed. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 20:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can I link these indexes to the corresponding pages of indexes on Wikisource as discussed with Gwen Gale here? Openjurist (talk) 21:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was everything has been speedy deleted CSD A3 (and/or A5). Gwen Gale (talk) 06:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of opinions from the Federal Reporter, Third Series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Entire series fails WP:IINFO. Every blue link fails. Leonard^(Bloom) 18:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the time to manually nominate all 325 associated pages, with this article. My question is, can it be assumed that with this one article at AfD, all the others will receive the some outcome as this article? Leonard^(Bloom) 18:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget List_of_opinions_from_the_Federal_Reporter,_Second_Series. There has been more than enough time to move these over to Wikisource. I'm thinking the time has come to speedy delete all of this as CSD 5, since the openjurist.org content is now at least linked from Wikisource. I do think the uploader should have looked into what Wikipedia is before copy-pasting this un-encyclopedic, public domain content into hundreds of articles. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. And, I've got the F.2d nom'd already. ^_^ Leonard^(Bloom) 19:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I may speedy them all soon. None of this belongs here and truth be told, they amount to link indexes to an external site. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can I link these indexes to the corresponding pages of indexes on Wikisource as discussed with Gwen Gale here? Openjurist (talk) 21:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Put a link to these sources in the article Federal Reporter, is all. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 21:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Professional Crossword Generator (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable software. I am also nominating Professional Crossword Software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for the same reason. Both were nominated for speedy deletion but did not fit the criteria. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete This user has created, so far, not just Professional Crossword Generator (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Professional Crossword Software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), but also Professional Crossword Software project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). This is getting absurd. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 20:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Nonsense article(s). Tavix (talk) 22:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both … no WP:RS to WP:V … only "reference" is subject's website, which says that this is a "project" that is still in development … Happy Editing! — 72.75.91.179 (talk · contribs) _{22:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)}[reply]
• Delete I had nominated for CSD. But software is not a category... Anyway. AFD it is... ChiragPatnaik (talk) 02:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per everybody. BobAmnertiopsis∴_ChatMe! 20:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Stifle (talk) 15:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DJ IR (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Was prodded, but removed by the author. The subject of this article (as well as the author) is not notable. His only assertion of notability is a 275/300 rank on the ReverbNation "chart". That's not notability. Also, When I Grow Up (I Wanna Be) and Lose Control (DJ IR Mixtape), as non-notable as well. seresin ( ¡? ) 18:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I Grow Up (I Wanna Be) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Lose Control (DJ IR Mixtape) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Delete- He is no Tiesto. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 20:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A similar article has been deleted many times under a different title. - While this version at least makes a claim of notablity, he's still not notable. --Versageek 00:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 23:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sui Liaga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No sources are cited; lack of verifiable information and as a result does not meet the criteria in the notability guidelines. The only information I can find is this which contradicts the information given in the article. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 17:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete-> Fails WP:ATHLETE. Hitro 17:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)Hitrohit2001[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was nomination withdrawn. Canley (talk) 00:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of people named Gurung (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Notability of the most of the people in this list is questionable. No reference at all. Why these people are notable to be the part of encyclopedia is unknown? Having "Gurung" surname doesn't make anyone Encyclopedic. Verification is necessary. I support deletion or trimming the article till verified entries. Hitro 17:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 17:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This doesn't need references, its just a list. I would suggest keeping the list even if all the redlinks are removed. Gurung is large enough, and this is great idea for a split. It will eventuall fill in with bluelinks. In addition, there probably aren't tons of English writing Nepalese people that can track down English language reliable sources for articles on notable Nepalese people. Therefore, per WP:BIAS, I would suggest holding onto most of the redlink until someone with familiarity with the situation takes a look. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - a disambig from Gurung is really all this is. I will however be removing all redlinked articles from the list --T-rex 21:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment- I agree with T-Rex. Removal of red link articles makes it alright. AfD should be closed on this consensus.Hitro 21:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)Hitrohit2001[reply]
• Gurung disambig page is all we need. Keep and close the AfD. -- iMatthew _T.C. 22:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  19:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Daily (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:BIO and WP:ENTERTAINER - unnotable musician. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 17:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:BIO. Movingboxes (talk) 02:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete -- fails WP:BIO and WP:NOTE. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 03:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Previous comment edited: where it now reads [[WP:BIO]] and [[WP:NOTE]], it had previously read {{WP:BIO}} and {{WP:NOTE}}, causing both of those pages to be transcluded onto this deletion discussion page. Nyttend (talk) 03:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Waggers (talk) 13:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gestell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unsourced WP:OR essay on what appears to be a fringe topic in philosophy, and/or a WP:DICDEF. It does not help that the article is incomprehensible to the layman, and that the author isn't sure whether it's "Gestell" or "Gestall".  Sandstein  16:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I agree that the article needs some work to bring it up to standard, but this is an important topic in the philosophy of technology. (Try an Internet search for "Gestell philosophy technology" if you want to see a large selection of articles on this concept.) The German article on Heiddegger has a substantial and apparently well-sourced section on Technology-as-Gestell [20]. Perhaps some of this material could be translated? --RichardVeryard (talk) 22:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A quick review reveals that there is plenty of source material available. GRBerry 15:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. PhilKnight (talk) 21:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tracy Byrd (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unnecessary dab. The singer's page was moved to Tracy Byrd, which already contains a link to his self-titled debut album and a hatnote pointing to the boxer. I can't find any proof of other notable Tracy Byrds, and there's really no point in disambiguating between a singer and his own album, so this is effectively a redundant dab. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I would argue that it should stay. According to WP:MOSDAB, Some disambiguation pages with "(disambiguation)" in the title list only two meanings, one of them being the primary meaning. In such cases, the disambiguation page is not strictly necessary, but is harmless. This is in the section on dabs which contain only two entries - this dab contains three. I believe it is potentially useful and certainly harmless. Boleyn (talk) 16:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Has three entries — (1) boxer, (2) singer, (3) singer's eponymous album. Harmless. — ERcheck (talk) 19:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - three articles is a definite keep. Abtract (talk) 16:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 23:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Girls (D12 song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable hidden track, doesn't appear to meet WP:Music guidelines. Ged UK (talk) 15:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 16:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 16:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Why? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wouldn't serve purpose as a redirect, given the qualifier. Hidden tracks aren't generally notable, except in rare cases where they're released as singles. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect to Devil's Night (album) - a non-notable hidden track that is really not notable at all --T-rex 21:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Piñataland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No reliable sources whatsoever. GarageBand doesn't seem reliable, and the page reads like a fansite as a whole. Note that David Wechsler actually links to a psychologist. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 15:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Another editor has added some reliable sources. Based on the NPR story, the coverage in the The Village Voice, a brief mention in The New York Observer, as well as a mention in The New York Times, I believe there is enough there for criterion #1 of WP:MUSIC. Keep. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep based on the added sources; clearly meets WP:MUSIC. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 17:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- well-known blogger and science-fiction author John Scalzi noted on August 28, 2008 that the band's second volume of alternative history songs has been released on iTunes, Amazon, and eMusic, adding addl credibility. 64.175.37.27 (talk) 03:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep based on the added sources, though the article could definitely use a rewrite. 3-sphere (talk) 03:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Although the users who wish to keep the article numerically outnumber the ones who wish to delete, they have failed to present any strong arguments, mostly arguing that the list is useful, while the users wishing to delete have presenter stronger, guideline-based arguments. Maxim (☎) 21:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC) I've decided to re-close this as no-consensus. I was alerted at my talkpage. I took a second look, and I felt that my previous close as delete was too hasty. What pushed me to reclose this was DGG's comment; while the users arguing to delete comments are certainly valid and strong, DGG's is equally convincing, thus no consensus exists to delete the article. Maxim (☎) 23:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Austin City Limits performers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Ginormous list of every act that's ever performed on Austin City Limits. Overly broad list, non-trivial intersection, violates WP:NOT#IINFO and WP:NOT#DIR. Another similar list, List of past Jamboree in the Hills performers, was deleted for the same reason. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 15:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 16:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The last AfD (which I forgot about) resulted in keep without any actual rationale behind the "keep". One simply said that the list could easily be verified (which it is), and another didn't give a reason, just suggested that this should be a table instead. Therefore, I feel that last AfD did not have a consensus at all (although I would've closed it as a default keep myself). Still, I feel that the precedent set by List of past Jamboree in the Hills performers, and the fact that this violates WP:NOT twice, are sufficient.Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 15:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep See my note in the previous AFD, which was just over a month ago Russeasby (talk) 16:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment to expand on my comments from the origonal AFD: I disagree that this list fails either of the WP:NOT Categories as suggested by the AFD lister. It passes WP:NOT#IINFO, in that it is indeed a discriminent list, it is not a list of "all musicians", it is disciminent in that it lists only those who have preformed on ACL. Reguarding WP:NOT#DIR, well, simply read the explaination of that, this list in no way fails here, someone care to cite where in WP:NOT#DIR this specificly fails? Also note, that the nominator here decided to argue my points on my talk page rather then here, while inappropriate I will still assume good faith. Russeasby (talk) 22:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep WP has lots of lists. This one might be useful to someone. No reason to single this one out to delete. If you want to change WP policy to get rid of all lists please let me know and you will have my support. Northwestgnome (talk) 20:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- Austin City Limits is a notable program, and having a list of performers that has performed on the show is pretty useful for some people. Also, as some have stated, there are other lists of similar nature as well. Delete this, and their existence is no longer acceptable to Wikipedia. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 20:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The second part of your argument is basically WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS]. Also, do you have any proof that there are any lists of similar nature? Tavix (talk) 22:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a directory of information that would be impossible to verify. Although there are some references, all they do is establish that there is a list and there isn't any WP:RS that would verify this list. Tavix (talk) 22:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The list is entirely verifiable via the ACL website (link is on the page). Granted this is a primary source, but within the guidelines at WP:RS it is a permitable primary source. Since it is a list, and purely data, with no commentary the primary source is not only fine, but the most reliable one. So the list is verifiable and verified in its current state. Russeasby (talk) 22:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• But it needs verifiable and at least secondary sources to show notability for groups of bands. MuZemike (talk) 05:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not sure I follow you. Are you suggesting that the bands themselves are not notable? If thats the case lets put each of their articles up for AFD as well. But I suspect I am misunderstanding you, care to clarify? Russeasby (talk) 12:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep An entirely logical list of notable articles. 90% of the entries have WP articles. Those that don't should be sourced to show they performed in Austin City Limits. No reason to the delete this one!--Mike Cline (talk) 18:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment its worth noting that even the few bands which do not have articles, most likely all of them are actually notable to have articles of their own (or redirects, since some may be solo members of a more notable band they played in). If they appeared on ACL it should be easy to assert their notability even beyond ACL as they were notable before their appearance or they would not have been invited in the first place. Just that no one has got around to making those articles yet, a good project for someone perhaps. Russeasby (talk) 00:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep such lists are useful, the information is verifiable, and the performers all or almost all notable. Exactly the right sort of list. would encourage as many more of t these as we can get people to work on. Perhaps the earlier deletion needs a review, but if the fundamental show is not as improtant perhaps there is a distinction. Using precedent for this is like saying since we have occasionally deleted an article on a band, delete every one of them. DGG (talk) 23:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete per items 2, 3, and 6 of WP:LC. Stifle (talk) 12:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 18:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Almagest (game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Game that is going to be released in 2009. The article fails to state why the game is notable, and although it has some length it almost reads as an advertisement and is 'crufty'. Google gave 450 or so results for Almagest MMORPG although many of those seemed unrelated - I don't see how this game is, at this stage, notable. Esteffect (talk) 15:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and WP:CRYSTAL. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- While there are articles that predicts future gaming products, this one, I don't think, should remain on Wikipedia. If this game proves to be a hit (who knows?), by all means, restore the page. Otherwise, this seemingly "dime-a-dozen" game should not have a page here. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 20:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unsourced crystal ball-ism, advertisement. --Stormie (talk) 04:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — yet another crystalballin' MMORPG trying to promote itself. MuZemike (talk) 05:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge, already performed (non-admin closure). --Amalthea^Talk 23:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dasi Junior High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable junior high school. Possibly merge into Education in Taoyuan County. Ged UK (talk) 15:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 16:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/redirect to Education in Taoyuan County#Dasi Junior High School per established precedent. TerriersFan (talk) 15:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I have carried out the merge. TerriersFan (talk) 16:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Education in Taoyuan County#Dasi Junior High School - middle schools are not notable enough for independent articles --T-rex 21:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Scientizzle 16:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tattooed Lady of Lochee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:NOTE and a Google search yields absolutely nothing on the subject Bvlax2005 (talk) 15:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete I'd G3 it as vandalism but I get trouted every time I do that. Clearly nonsense. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No Hammer, it is not nonsense. But the fact that the author has not managed to produce any substantial references in two days suggests that it is original fiction. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with Hammer. This is silly. Well-crafted nonsense, but nonsense nonetheless. Mandsford (talk) 12:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete also delete related article Dark Lady of Logie. JuJube (talk) 22:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All the earmarks of a hoax. Mandsford (talk) 00:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Lady of Logie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Comment. Now added AfD tag to Dark Lady of Logie and I !vote delete for her. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 02:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Given the creator's spelling difficulty, I tried a few different variations and couldn't find any information using google to verify this figure's importance or existence. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep Withdrawal was stated on IRC; also, this looks like a snowball keep. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Humanzee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Whilst this article is technically feasible, it is over 90% speculation. Humanzees do not and may possibly never exist, and therefore this is effectively an unworkable article. It violates WP:NOT under Crystal Ball, since it also explains something which does not exist at this time. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 15:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Article is a part of four projects: placed notice of AFD on all four talk pages.Kww (talk) 15:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh dear. It seems that I have just done exactly the same thing without realising you already had done it. Oops... :) Thor Malmjursson (talk) 16:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It doesn't speculate, it reports on experiments, historical evidence, and the genetic underpinning that drive those studies. It used to be over 98% absolute crap, but I worked pretty hard to get that out. The Ivanov experiments are real. Bedford's experiments with in-vitro hybridization of gibbon eggs with human sperm are real. Oliver is real, even if he isn't a real humanzee. The genetic studies showing the similarities are real, and the genetic evidence of hybridization shortly after the species divergence is also real. Not really existing isn't a guideline under WP:N, it's whether reliable sources have written about it, and they have. The whole cryptozoology project would collapse if articles about mythical and hypothetical species were yanked out from underneath them. Hell, this article even got a visit from User:ScienceApologist and he didn't gut it.
  Kww (talk) 15:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep per arguments above. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 16:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Some sections of the article may need to be rewritten to focus more on what secondary sources actually say about the subject directly to move it away from speculation territory (I'm thinking of the "feasibility" section), and the sourcing definitely needs improvement, but this is nothing that can't be fixed by normal editing. AfD is not for article cleanup. An article on this subject that merely covers what scientists have said about it, and historical instances where such hybridization has been attempted or rumored to exist, would be perfectly acceptable in my book. Kww has a done a great job putting it on that path so far.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• keep a notable subject, speculation on human-ape hybrids is a valid subjest. What the article shouldn't do (and which it used to far too much) is indulge in speculation itself, but even so it's not grounds for deletion. Totnesmartin (talk) 16:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment from nominator - As I also stated in in the nom, its a violation of WP:NOT (A Crystal Ball) - Allow me to refer you to Article 3 of that item:

"Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate. While scientific and cultural norms continually evolve, we cannot anticipate that evolution but must wait for it to happen. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 17:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Much of what needs to be said already has been. This is a legitimate field of current scientific reseach, even of such a hybrid has not been (definitively) produced yet, and a legitimate field of anthropologic endeavor, to the extent of investigating the possibility of such hybrids early in human history. The article could use some additional clean up, and should not speculate on whether such a hybrid will be produced or confirmed in the future. But the research around whether such a hybrid could occur and whether it once did belongs in this article. Rlendog (talk) 17:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 23:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Test matches (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete. Pointless list which repeats the titles of some of the other articles in its own category; presumably it was created before the category but it serves no useful purpose now. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 14:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 16:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Done by Stifle. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kenny Toal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Pam Royle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Biographies of two newsreaders on a British local TV station. Claim to notability is that one of them was once sick while presenting, but not on air, and the other had to stand in for him. I don't think that's enough. Delete both. JohnCD (talk) 14:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete none. This is Drew (talk) 14:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Why? This isn't a vote. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 15:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment by nominator: author blanked Kenny Toal and requested deletion, but I have restored it as one is not supposed to blank during an AfD debate. A reference has been added to Pam Royle but it seems to be just a list of the presenters of a particular TV programme, hence not independent. JohnCD (talk) 16:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  No need to do that. If the author blanks the page it can be taken as a request to delete. I've deleted the page. Stifle (talk) 13:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 14:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]